A Liberdade é Una e Indivisível. Lord Acton
Lisboa, Portugal
Joined February 2012
- Tweets44.8K
- Following1.6K
- Followers779
- Likes11K
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
Apanhar o combóio em Espanha é quase tão perigoso com o ir para a guerra.
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
Afonso Gonçalves, do grupo Reconquista, é posto a andar pelos jagunços do regime!
A sagrada Constituição de Abril é uma maravilha: garante a liberdade de reunião e de manifestação, mas, no episódio comentado pelo Partido Libertário, Afonso Gonçalves, do Reconquista, recebe uma tradução policial bastante mais curta: ponha-se a andar, e depressa! O artigo 45.º reconhece o direito de reunião pacífica, sem armas e sem autorização.
Ser rotulado de “extrema-direita” não demonstra uma agressão, nem dispensa a justificação de uma intervenção policial. Se houve violência ou ameaça, identifiquem-se os actos e os responsáveis. Se o problema foi apenas a presença e a opinião, a tão celebrada liberdade fica reduzida à tolerância de quem manda. Defender este princípio não exige concordar com uma única proposta do Reconquista: exige perceber que uma liberdade dependente da simpatia política é um privilégio.
Mas os nacionalistas também deviam retirar uma lição do encontro com o Estado que tanto veneram. Querem dar-lhe mais poder para impor a sua ordem e depois espantam-se quando esse poder lhes ordena que desapareçam, com risco de levarem no lombo. Acreditam que basta mudar o homem ao comando para transformar a máquina de coerção numa instituição benigna.
Na habitação, a disputa entre culpar os imigrantes e exigir mais intervenção estatal deixa convenientemente de fora impostos, obstáculos à construção, insegurança contratual e manipulação monetária. Uns querem o Estado a distribuir casas; outros querem-no a escolher quem pode cá viver. O libertário começa por exigir liberdade para construir, contratar e dispor da propriedade. A liberdade para protestar contra o poder, mesmo quando o manifestante sonha exercê-lo.
Entra aqui e deixa já a tua assinatura: zurl.co/NusnN
Dá-nos um donativo: zurl.co/5e6iT; transferência bancária: IBAN BE62 9053 6612 2261; Titular: Associação dos Libertários Portugueses
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
Excuse me @ComicDaveSmith … I’m an Austrian Econ woman… 💅😂
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
Aprende com estes dois, que percebem de fruta...
youtu.be/7PV8-UDFtEM
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
Every libertarian I know says “End the Fed” and just hopes everyone else just understands.
They don’t. @ComicDaveSmith explains it perfectly
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
Objeções cristãs infundadas ao libertarianismo
Os católicos que contestam o libertarianismo tendem a basear suas objeções na falta de entendimento sobre que é o libertarianismo. Uma reclamação é que o libertarianismo é insuficiente como uma orientação para a vida cristã. Dito de outro modo, a crítica alega (corretamente) que o princípio de não agressão não é a resposta para todas as questões.
Nessa objeção, eles não conseguem entender que o libertarianismo não é um diagrama completo para a vida de uma pessoa, mas apenas um compromisso a fim de evitar que se inicie uma ação violenta contra outros. O problema não é se o libertarianismo é suficiente, mas se é consistente com a vida cristã. A essência desse estilo de vida foi sintetizada por Jesus nestes dois mandamentos:
"O mais importante é este: ‘Ouve, ó Israel, o Senhor, o nosso Deus, o Senhor é o único Senhor. Ame o Senhor, o seu Deus de todo o seu coração, de toda a sua alma, de todo o seu entendimento e de todas as suas forças’. O segundo é este: ‘Ame o seu próximo como a si mesmo’" (Marcos 12: 29-31).
O primeiro mandamento – que trata do relacionamento de cada um com Deus – não é relevante para o princípio de não agressão. O segundo mandamento diz respeito ao nosso relacionamento com nosso semelhante: “Ame seu próximo como a si mesmo”. Tal determinação contém o princípio de não agressão (PNA) que equivale exatamente àquele aspecto do mandamento que nos proíbe de fazer aos outros o que não gostaríamos que os outros fizessem a nós.
O crítico irá defender que há mais em amar nosso próximo do que não causar dano a ele: que tal alimentar o faminto, vestir o nu, visitar o doente, perdoar e orar por nosso próximo, e assim por diante, por meio de cada ato de misericórdia tanto corporal quanto espiritual?
Contudo, a questão não é se o PNA é completo, mas se ele é compatível com o amar nosso semelhante. Alimentar um mendigo pode ser mais louvável do que não roubar o alimento do mendigo, mas a segunda ação é mais necessária do que a primeira. Não há nada no PNA que entre em conflito com o dever cristão para boas obras, caridade e bondade. Não há motivo para criticar o PNA por ser um sistema de moralidade incompleto quando ele jamais se propôs a ser completo por si só.
Outros críticos da liberdade irão indicar a conduta e os textos de certos libertários como prova de que um católico não pode ser um libertário. Sem dúvida, alguns libertários praticam e aprovam condutas que o ensino católico reprova. Essas, por sua vez, podem envolver aspectos referentes a sexo e casamento, uso de drogas e outros abusos; literalmente, cada escolha errada que as pessoas fazem não viola o princípio da não agressão.
De novo, o crítico espera demais da liberdade. Os libertários entendem a liberdade como necessária para o desenvolvimento humano, mas nenhum católico a considera um plano estratégico para sua vida. Deixar nosso semelhante em paz simplesmente caracteriza a base comum de Santo Agostinho à qual todos devem aderir. Nada nesse princípio é contrário à fé católica.
Este post foi criado com base no artigo "Questionamentos católicos sobre liberdade", de Randy England, disponível em nosso site.
Link: institutolibertariocristao.o…
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
While Scottish gambler John Law printed the notes that wrecked France, an Irish banker in Paris watched from the inside and took notes of his own.
Richard Cantillon was born in the 1680s into a landowning family from Ballyheigue, County Kerry, that fought for James II and lost its land for it. He spent time in Spain, then came to Paris in 1714 to work for a second cousin's bank, and when the cousin went bankrupt in 1716, Cantillon bought the bank with backing from Matthew Decker. He built a business moving money between Paris and London, serving exiles from the British Isles.
That put him right next to Law's Mississippi Company, and he judged the scheme unsound. He bought shares early anyway and sold at a large profit, then collected on the Company's debt at high interest after the crash. Shares fell almost 90%, and the losers, including James Brydges, blamed Cantillon. His debtors chased him with lawsuits and even murder plots until he died in London in May 1734 under murky circumstances.
Around 1730, he wrote the Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général. French censorship held it back, and it appeared in 1755, twenty-one years after his death. Economists consider it the first complete treatise on economics.
Its sharpest idea came straight out of Law's wreckage. New money doesn't spread evenly. It enters the economy at specific points, and the first people to receive it get to spend it before prices rise, while everyone further down the line pays higher prices on wages that haven't moved.
Printing money transfers wealth from the last recipient to the first. Economists call this the Cantillon effect, and it is why money is never neutral. In France, the people nearest the bank cashed out, and ordinary savers held the paper when it collapsed.
He also gave economics the entrepreneur as risk-bearer. Adam Smith cited him, and Hayek drew on him. Jevons rediscovered the Essai in the late 1800s, after nearly a century and a half of neglect.
Scottish gambler John Law was born in Edinburgh in 1671, the son of a goldsmith banker. His father died when he was a boy, and Law grew up to trade his inheritance for the card tables of London.
In 1694, he killed a man named Edward Wilson in a duel, received a death sentence, and broke out of prison to flee to the Continent. He spent the next two decades gambling across Europe and studying banks.
Scotland rejected his plan to fund the country with paper money. France said yes. Louis XIV died in 1715 and left the crown buried in debt, and in 1716 the Regent, Philippe d'Orléans, let Law open a bank that issued notes.
Law then folded Louisiana trade, tax collection, and the royal mint into the Mississippi Company and sold shares on promises of colonial riches that nobody had found. To keep buyers coming, the bank printed notes. Shares climbed from about 500 livres in 1719 to about 10,000 by early 1720, and the word "millionaire" entered the language.
Then the state enforced the fiction. After converting to Catholicism, Law became Controller General of Finances, banned most payments in gold and silver, and made it a crime to hold coin above a small sum. Citizens who wanted out of paper lost the right to leave. When holders rushed to cash in, the bank had printed far more notes than it held in coin.
In May 1720, the government decreed a cut in the value of notes and shares, panic forced a reversal within a week, and crowds fought in the rue Quincampoix. Law lost his post that spring and fled France in December. He died broke in Venice in 1729.
The recipe never changes: print to fund the favored project, lock the exits, and punish anyone who tries to leave with their savings.
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
Noam Chomsky, the "Father of modern linguistics," looked at evidence of industrial-scale murder and decided the real problem was Western media bias.
By 1977, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge had already killed roughly 1.7 million Cambodians through execution, forced starvation, and slave labor. Chomsky, writing with Edward Herman in "Distortions at Fourth Hand," treated survivor testimony and refugee accounts as State Department fabrications, preferring the far lower body counts published in sympathetic leftist sources.
The intellectual gymnastics required to reach that conclusion were extraordinary. Chomsky dismissed Father Ponchaud's firsthand reporting, questioned Francois Ponchaud's credibility directly, and leaned on a 1977 State Department document to suggest deaths numbered in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands. He applied maximum skepticism to anti-communist sources and near-zero skepticism to anything that cut against American foreign policy narratives. The methodology was selective to the point of being fraudulent.
Chomsky was not a fringe figure typing in a basement. He held an MIT professorship and commanded enormous intellectual authority among Western leftists. When he cast doubt on Cambodian atrocity reports, journalists and academics listened. Real people died while influential intellectuals debated whether their deaths were sufficiently well-sourced.
Collectivist ideology requires enemies to function. When the Khmer Rouge built their agrarian utopia by emptying Phnom Penh at gunpoint and executing anyone wearing glasses, Chomsky's instinct was to protect the ideological project by attacking the messengers. Ideology over corpses.
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
I think @JMilei is correct here. The numbers are not adding up.
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
I've done 14 hours of live reading. Still probably 40 hours to go. You see why this is hard? teapawt.net/brownstoneinst/status/…
“35 days after the shot, I developed a critical blood disorder.”
3 months after the shot:
“Vaccination caused bone marrow loss.”
12 months after the shot:
“I’m on dialysis.”
That is the tragic report that one person sent to the CDC’s V-Safe system after taking a Covid shot.
The CDC never called them back.
Another person started out feeling “dizzy” after the shot.
They ultimately suffered “three strokes” in the following months.
And they didn’t hold back their anger in their reports to the CDC:
“I’m sick as f—.”
“You don’t give a s—.”
“Nobody calls me back.”
@jeffreytucker
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
The US bishops have been cowardly, reprehensible human beings for longer than I've been alive
U.S. bishops are opposing proposed Census Bureau rule changes for the 2030 census, arguing that excluding noncitizens without lawful permanent resident status from the apportionment count would effectively deny them recognition as persons.
ewtnnews.com/world/us/u-s-bi…
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
Os livros abrem a conversa. O café ajuda a prolongá-la. 📚☕️
Junta-te ao Discord do Clube de Leitura Libertário: um ponto de encontro para partilhar leituras, discutir ideias e conviver entre sessões.
A liberdade também se lê — e conversa-se.
discord.gg/DTxhJvB2D
#Libertarianismo #EscolaAustríaca
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
The financial media runs on a protection racket, and you are the mark.
Peter Schiff has been predicting hyperinflation and dollar collapse every single year since 2009. Seventeen years. The dollar is still the world's reserve currency. Schiff still sells gold funds and books interviews on CNBC. Nobody fires the guy. Nobody even interrupts him.
This persists because bad forecasters carry no skin in the game. A surgeon who botches operations loses patients, then loses his license. A market pundit who botches calls loses nothing. He collects his appearance fee, pivots to "the collapse is coming, just delayed," and books his next podcast. Confidence is rewarded over accuracy.
Media platforms compound this by optimizing for engagement, not truth. A loud, dramatic prediction of imminent catastrophe generates clicks. A sober probability-weighted assessment of capital allocation generates yawns. Networks select for the wrong trait aggressively and repeatedly.
There is also what Nassim Taleb ironically calls the "no skin in the game" problem. When a commentator manages no real capital, faces no audit trail, and bears no fiduciary duty to anyone watching, accountability simply has nowhere to land. Ironically because he is one of the worst offenders in the space.
Sadly, audiences do not track prediction records. You watch a pundit in October 2026 and form impressions based on his current confidence, not his track record since 2019. He exploits your memory gap completely.
Demand a track record with dates. Every call, every outcome. Forecasters who survive that scrutiny deserve your attention. The rest are selling you certainty because certainty sells.
Here are people with excellent and honest track records to follow:
@LukeGromen @RonStoeferle @saifedean @LynAldenContact @ThomasEWoods @porterstansb @LawrenceLepard @TaviCosta @NickHudsonCT @CorySwan @SantiagoAuFund @MacleodFinance @profstonge
Who would you add? And who are your worst offenders?
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
War is the health of the state, and every treasury minister in history has known it.
Governments that could never justify a peacetime income tax extracted one the moment artillery started firing. Britain imposed its first income tax in 1799, not through principled fiscal debate, but because William Pitt needed to fight Napoleon. The tax was supposed to expire at Waterloo. It came back in 1842 and never left. The people paid for one war and funded a permanent bureaucracy.
The pattern repeats with mechanical consistency. Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, and within two years the new institution was monetizing war debt on an industrial scale. The inflation tax is the craftiest version of this theft because you never receive a bill. The purchasing power simply drains from your savings while politicians point at commodity markets and shrug.
Weimar Germany printed to fund World War One reparations. The Continental Congress printed Continentals to fund the Revolution until "not worth a Continental" became a folk saying about government paper. Rome clipped coins for centuries of military expansion, debasing the denarius from nearly pure silver to a bronze coin with a silver wash.
Every episode follows the same logic. Direct taxes provoke visible resistance. Printing money diffuses the pain across every currency holder, spreading the theft thin enough that most victims never identify the thief. Inflation is taxation with superior public relations.
War simply gives the state permission to accelerate what it does in peacetime, only faster and without public consent. When you hear the words "emergency powers," you know you are about to be robbed.
Miguel M. Almeida retweeted
Dear black people. There are still an estimated 7 million black slaves in Africa today proving that you are the greatest slave traders of them all. White people were slaves too but we don't cry about it .
